If the latest crisis gripping State Parliament were a game of poker with Ken Smith, Geoff Shaw, Denis Napthine and Andrews around the table, the most recent round might have played out as follows.

Advertisement

Smith, forced to fall on his sword as Speaker when Shaw declared a lack of confidence in his ability to control Parliament, was first to show his hand, threatening to vote with Labor on any contempt motion against Shaw.

This potentially gave the opposition the numbers needed to oust the balance-of-power independent from Parliament.

Premier Denis Napthine: overplayed his hand. Photo: Rob Gunstone

Shaw, not to be outdone, raised Smith's contempt bid by threatening to vote with Labor on a motion of no-confidence in Napthine's government. Now Labor has a potential trigger for an early election.

Napthine then attempted to stare down Labor, pushing all of his chips to the centre of the table and declaring he would not be "held to ransom by some rogue MP from Frankston".

The logic was that Andrews would look grubby if he took up Shaw's offer and tried to seize power using Shaw's "tainted" vote just months before an election.

Vic state parliamentary crisis

Opposition Leader says the priority is dealing with Geoff Shaw's contempt of Parliament, and will wait until next Tuesday before making a decision on a no confidence motion. Photo: Pat Scala

He also once and for all severed links to Shaw by in effect accusing him of using his position to make unreasonable demands, including a particular judicial appointment.

The demands, Napthine said, were so serious the government would consider referring them to the anti-corruption commission.

But the last hand was played by Andrews. Far from taking up Shaw's offer to support a no-confidence motion against Napthine, Andrews revealed he will seek leave for a contempt motion to cast Shaw from Parliament when the house resumes on Tuesday.

Andrews then attempted to add to the sense of chaos by demanding Napthine meet with the Governor to discuss the ''constitutional crisis''.

It was a stunt, but it was also a shrewd move. Napthine had in effect accused Shaw of corruptly seeking inducements in exchange for his vote, while declaring he would not be held to ransom.

This has left him in a quandary. Napthine knows if he instructs the Coalition to vote with Labor in favour of a contempt motion, it could result in a byelection in Frankston, which the Coalition could lose, denying it a majority.

On the other hand, if Napthine denies Andrews his contempt motion on Tuesday, the public might wonder if the Premier was being fair dinkum when he in effect accused Shaw of corruption.

There are also uncomfortable questions for Napthine about exactly when Shaw made his alleged demands, and why they were made public only now. The best Napthine can do is try to slow the process to buy time. He has done this by declaring he won't rush into anything because it could be challenged in the High Court and Shaw would then "walk away without paying account for his actions".

Beyond all of this, there are questions about whether expulsion would be a disproportionately harsh penalty. I think it would be. Shaw isn't the first MP to have misused his entitlements. As one senior MP put it, ''being a dickhead is no crime''. The fact is, Shaw has never been convicted of anything.

The most likely outcome is that the Coalition will attempt to sanction Shaw by fining and suspending - rather than expelling - him.

For Napthine this would be the most satisfactory outcome. Shaw would be punished, but chances are this would avoid a distracting byelection, allowing Victoria's rickety Parliament to trundle on just long enough to make it to the election.